Second language acquisition

Since the focus in the Africa-Asia is mainly on ESLs, the dialectological approach has to be supplemented by insights from Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory. No ESL variety is uniform; rather it exists as a continuum of varying features, styles and abilities. The terms basilect, mesolect and acrolect are borrowed from Creole studies, where they denote first language varieties on a continuum. The terms basilang, mesolang and acrolang are sometimes used in connection with interlanguage studies, denoting the individual’s level of competence in the L2, rather than a relatively focused group norm (a newcomer in the L1 English metropolis might learn English as a L2 without being part of a group of L2 learners).

Most writers in New English studies adopt the Creole-based terms, without serious misunderstandings. However, in principle, there is a need to distinguish between basilect and basilang, because there is a difference between the fluent norms of a basilect and the rudimentary knowledge of an L2 in a basilang. Since the ESL varieties are relatively focused and stable the labels basilect, mesolect, acrolect will continue to be used.

At one end of the New English continuum are varieties characteristic of beginning L2 learners or learners who have fossilized at an early stage and evince no need or desire to progress further in their interlanguage variety (basilectal speakers). If they are just beginning an acquaintance with the target language, they are strictly speaking basilang speakers. At the other end are speakers who, by virtue of their education, motivation, life-styles and contacts with L1 and educated L2 speakers of English may well become so fluent as to be near-native (or acrolectal) speakers of English.

Situated between these endpoints is the vast majority of ESL users, who speak fluently but whose norms deviate significantly from those of L1 speakers as well as acrolectal ESL speakers. These are the mesolectal speakers, whose norms are the ones most writers have chosen to focus on, since they represent a kind of average value of the ESL. They are not as strongly denigrated as more basilang varieties might be in terms of intelligibility and fluency. They also pose fewer problems about the reliability of data, since a basilang speaker’s command might not be fluent enough to decide what norms underlie his or her speech.

Mesolectal ESL varieties display a degree of levelling of the target language (Standard English) in for example tense forms, prepositions, word order and so on. Moreover, many of these features are carried over into the (unedited) written language of individuals. Finally, mesolectal varieties are more representative of the local ethos than acrolectal varieties. The latter are sometimes stigmatised as being affected or representing outside norms.

Phrases like “speaking through the nose” in Nigeria and Zimbabwe or been tos (‘people who have been abroad’) in India and Nigeria reflect this disaffection on the part of the general populace of the ESL acrolectal elite who might stray too close to the norms of Received Pronunciation (RP). Just as stigmatized is what is described in Ghanaian English terminology as LAFA (‘Locally Acquired Foreign Accent’).

The provisos mentioned by other editors in their introductions regarding the nature of dialectal description also hold for the present area. Where an item is described as a feature, it is not claimed to be unique to the variety concerned. Nor is it necessarily the only variant within the ESL being described. The influence of the standard in formal communication makes it likely that the equivalent standard feature is also in use (especially in syntax), and may even be more commonly employed than the item described as a feature.

Several concepts from Second Language Acquisition Studies are an essential part of New English studies, especially input, Foreigner Talk and Teacher Talk, overgeneralization, analogy and transfer. The robustness of the substrate languages in Africa and Asia makes the likelihood of their influence on ESL very great. Indeed, many researchers take substrate influence to be axiomatic in phonology and only slightly less so in syntax, pragmatics and lexis.

For syntax, however, there is reason to be cautious. In some areas it is possible that what is popularly believed to be interference, might be a survival from a nonstandard dialect of British English or even a survival of a form that was once standard but was later jettisoned in the history of Standard English.

Many contributors use RP and Standard British English as points of comparison. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is rather a matter of convenience and that RP and Standard British English function as a kind of metalanguage in that respect. RP, especially, would have been, and continues to be, rather remote from the experiences of ESL learners. Especially for the earliest periods in which English was introduced to what were to become the colonies, several non-standard varieties were part of the initial input.

The earliest teachers and providers of input were missionaries (frequently EFL users themselves), sailors, soldiers, hunters, tradesmen, divers and so forth. Teachers with certificates arrived on the scene later. The notion of a target language then should not be construed too literally: more often it was a varied, vexatious and moving target.

It is necessary to tackle the prejudice against New Englishes, sometimes evident amongst their own speakers. Although prescriptive-minded critics would prefer to see many of the features identified as errors to be eradicated, their presence must be seen within a broader context. An ESL exists within a local “linguistic ecology”. It must therefore become referentially adequate to describe local topography, fauna, customs and so forth. It also has to blend in with the local linguistic ecology by being receptive to favored turns of phrase, structural possibilities and habits of pronunciation. That is, for English to function “normally” in a country like India, it has to become Indian – a fact that the work of Kachru (e.g. 1983) constantly reminds us of.